Outdated Thread- Risks of Intrastate Shipping of Banned Species

[DartFrog180]

Hi Folks:
I noticed some people are still offering here or in other places sales of the banned species to "in-state" buyers and offering to ship.

I am not an attorney, but I think that practice may present some risk, potentially considerable, of violating the Lacey Act under the interim rule banning 201 species from interstate transport. Here's why...

When you ship to a buyer within your state you should NOT assume that the package will stay in state. My understanding of the shipping/logistics industry (a good friend is an exec in one such company and confirmed this) relies on complicated software to profitably get packages from point A to point B. This does NOT mean the packages follow a straight line, and in fact, depending on your location and that of the buyer it is possible the package could stop in one or even MORE states on its way to the final destination.

As an example I first learned of this after buying a (non-live) item on EBAY a couple years ago. The seller sent an automated tracking number and I found out they were located only five miles from me. However, as I tracked the package, I was amazed to see it was picked up from the seller, taken to the nearest large airport (one of the world's busiest passenger and cargo hubs) and put on a plane ( I assume because it was scanned here about three hours before it was scanned there, which would have been impossible by ground transport) to Dayton, OH. There it was scanned, again, and put back on a plane, flown back to my state and delivered (48 hours after initial pickup from the seller) to my doorstep. I found this quite inefficient (okay, asinine), so I asked my logistics friend, and he confirmed this is common if not standard practice for most such companies. In the scheme of things a small package put on a plane or a big truck to go to a sorting hub elsewhere can still be profitable, and the routes are all calculated to keep the packages flowing for profitability and efficiency within a companies systems.

So, why I think this applies to the interstate ban should be obvious, but in case not...

IF you sell even to a buyer in-state, and the salamander/newt crossed state lines in the process of shipping, as the package I described above, I bet it could technically be enforced. The courier just provides the service of transport and delivery, and would not bear responsibility because you shipped the merchandise. Again, I am not an attorney, nor am I trying to scare anyone. But the Lacey Act has very tough penalties available, so unless someone can confirm this interpretation is wrong, and why, I would urge great caution in shipping even "in-state" until there is more clarification after the comment period and final rule issued by USFWS.

 

[jewett]

Hi Folks:
My understanding of the shipping/logistics industry (a good friend is an exec in one such company and confirmed this) relies on complicated software to profitably get packages from point A to point B.

So does the USPS fall under the "shipping/logistics industry" and if so do they also use this method to ship? If memory serves, I don't think I have ever received a newt related package from a private individual that was not shipped via USPS (instead of UPS, FedEx, etc)... Anyway, interesting point.

HJ

 

[FrogEyes]

Although you're right about the process, I doubt it would lead to enforcement, much less prosecution. There's no demonstrable intent to cross a state line, even though it may occur incidentally/accidentally. As far as the buyer and seller know, it's a completely legal intrastate movement. Under other circumstances of accidental transport, USFWS has been unable to do anything [water moved intentionally between states, and injurious species being moved accidentally with it].

 

[DartFrog180]

As I said in my initial post, I am not positive of this interpretation, but as I also said, the potential penalties if there was a decision to enforce on this are severe enough that most people would probably not want to take the risk...your choice.

From the communities perspective, I also submit that we should discourage finding, claiming to find, and especially exploiting perceived loopholes. That just makes it look like we're already disregarding the rule rather than trying to work in ernest to try to improve it by addressing the parts that may not have been well conceived.

 

[Pop Alexandra]

Did anyone experience any repercussions due to these regulations?
Should I worry about this and contact some cargo company?
_______________________________________
Alexandra from Cargolution logistics

 

[Otterwoman]

The ban is over.

 

[FrogEyes]

Rephrase - the ban is NOT over. The interstate movement portion of the ban was never legal, and the courts agreed and ruled a year ago that USFWS had no authority to ban interstate movements. It is [and always was] legal to ship within the USA, EXCEPT to Hawai'i, Puerto Rico, USVI, or DC. Ship within any state or territory, and ship between the 49 mainland states, but not into any territory, any island territory or state, into the 49 from anywhere else, or anywhere into the USA from another country.

It sounds complicated, though it's really not. There are 49 mainland states [DC is a territory and not legally a mainland state]. These are considered one unit under this law, and any shipping inside this unit is okay. Shipping between regions isn't okay, and most of the named regions are actually islands with respect to one another, and would be hard for invasives to move between on their own. Conversely, any invasive species already in CONUS can theoretically move on its own over any state line, making a ban on shipping somewhat pointless [and contrary to other laws and state and personal rights].

The import ban is also only for those 200+ identified species, allowing for the fact that there are errors and some species are banned without being listed by name.

 

[MisterWayne]

FrogEyes, quick question. Im in Chicago Illinois, if I were to then find a seller within the US that is not located in one of the Territories you mentioned or Island states who has CB salamanders (lets say fire salamanders b/c i know those are on the ban list), The seller would be able to ship them to me then correct? if neither of us are within those ban territories?

 

[Pop Alexandra]

FrogEyes, quick question. Im in Chicago Illinois, if I were to then find a seller within the US that is not located in one of the Territories you mentioned or Island states who has CB salamanders (lets say fire salamanders b/c i know those are on the ban list), The seller would be able to ship them to me then correct? if neither of us are within those ban territories?

Indeed. That would be the best case scenario.

 

[Tolkien]

Wow, I didn't know delivery took this route. Simply, I rarely do Intrastate Shipping, so I never thought about it. But a friend of mine does this kind of shipping a lot, I'll have to tell him. Parcels from China are my choice. I used to order with China Post and parcels were practically untraceable. And sometimes my goods didn't come to me. But recently I started using speedpak shipping, with their technology the parcel can be tracked much better. And there are no situations where a parcel gets lost somewhere along the way, because you can write to the seller and open a dispute.

 

[John]

This thread is confusing people. Within the lower 48 states plus Alaska the interstate aspect of the Bsal ban was invalidated in 2017. The original poster's concern would only technically matter if your package traveled through Washington DC or outside the lower 48 + Alaska. I am now closing this thread to prevent further confusion.